Reading various people's response to my charge of anti-Semitism (on my talk page and here) I realize that some people either do not understand my basic assumptions about hate-speech.  Since this matter extends beyond WHEELER or the early National Socialism talk page to a matter of general policy, I want to clarify my assumptions here.  Obviously if people disagree with these assumptions, they will disagree with my call to ban WHEELER.  My assumptions by the way are based on personal experience but also my understanding of U.S. Hate Speech laws (not that Wikipedia is obliged to follow them, but that they reflect the thinking of many other people) and Sartre's book Anti-Semite and Jew (not that Wikipedia is obliged to follow French existentialist thought -- I just think it is a thoughtful book, not just about anti-Semitism but about hate speech in general).  Here I explain what I assume at some length, because my point is not about some specific conflict between me (or AndyL) and WHEELER; it is a general point of which WHEELER's comment happens to be one example.

1) hate speech is categorically different from offensive or uncivil remarks.  Many people have pointed out that there is often a certain level of incivility at Wikipedia; sometimes people make unfortunately offensive remarks in the heat of an argument, and sometimes remarks are offensive because they are controversial and play a constructive role in an argument.  I agree with these points in principle, but do not think they apply to hate speech.  For example, if someone writes "Sl, you are a shithead," well, yeah, I would take that as an uncivil and offensive remark.  But I would not call it hate speech.  Nor would I call it anti-Semitism.  WHEELER observed that just because a dog barks at a Jew doesn't make the dog anti-Semitic.  Fair enough.  Just because I am Jewish does not mean that all attacks on me are anti-Semitic.  But if the dog barks "Sl, you are a dirty Jew," that is anti-Semitic.  Here is the difference: the first attack attacks me as an individual; the second attacks me as a member of a class or group of people.  For this reason I respectfully disagree with Anthere's sympathetic remarks.  The point is not that I feel hurt or injured.  These are personal feelings and I have always strived not to let personal feelings affect my involvement in Wikipedia.  Anti-Semitism is not wrong because it is hurtful on an individual or personal level; anti-Semitism attacks a whole group.  Anti-Semitism is impersonal by nature.  By the way, it is for this reason that non-Jews can and ought to oppose anti-Semitism, just as Whites can oppose racism against Blacks and Jews can oppose racism against Arabs.  You do not have to feel personally injured to oppose something that is wrong.  In fact, WHEELER didn't hurt my feelings because I do not care what WHEELER thinks about me at all.  I simply oppose hate speech and anti-Semitism in all forms because it is wrong.

2) hate speech is never about factual accuracy.  This is because facts are contingent, but racism is based on essentialism.  It is a fact that some Jews have been murderers.  But are they murderers because they are Jewish?  That they were (or are) Jewish is almost certainly incidental to their having murdered (or robbed a bank, or gone through a red light).  It may very well be a fact that several or even many prison guards in the Soviet Union were Jewish.  But they weren't camp guards because they were Jewish.  To then talk about "Jewish concentration camps" is simply not about a factual claim we can research or question.  There is no point in even questioning it as a factual claim.  It is absurd on its face and the only point of the claim is to lump all Jews together, to treat them not as individuals but as members of a class.  By the way, sometimes such correlations may be valid.  Criminologists often look for correlations between behavior and race, class, or gender.  I just think it is obvious that in this particular case WHEELER was not making an empirical claim subject to argument; he was using a slur in order to attack (I think Jrosenzweig and AndyL have provided sufficient evidence, for those who do not think this is obvious)

3) There is a difference between what one feels or thinks, and how one expresses it publicly.  Regulating hate speech (through a ban, or an apology or retraction) is not about regulating how someone feels.  I don't think it is possible to control someone else's feelings -- hell, I am not sure it is possible to control one's own feelings.  And if it were possible, I don't think it would be desirable.  But we (not just government, but society or community) regulates how people express there feelings all the time.  We can think what we like, but we know that in some contexts it is inappropriate or even dangerous to say what we think; we regulate ourselves, personally, as well.  WHEELER, for example, can think whatever he wants.  But to participate in a conversation, there are some things he won't say.  And to participate in a community there are some things he shouldn't say.  Where we draw the line is a separate matter that I address below -- here I just want to emphasize that it is what WHEELER wrote on one of our pages, not what he thinks, that I think we should concern ourselves with.

4) Wikipedia should not tolerate hate speech.  I think an open society should limit such regulation as much as possible. Some people have pointed out that even WHEELER has a right to free speech.  I agree.  But that does not mean that someone can say whatever they like, here.  We should tolerate a certain level of offensive remarks as unavoidable byproducts of heated exchanges, just as we should tolerate a high level of ultimately empty chatter on talk pages as necessary byproducts of the editing process.  We should certainly encourage controversy.  But there is simply no benefit to Wikipedia from hate speech, and there is no need for us to provide people with an outlet for hate speech.   God knows, there are plenty of other outlets on the internet for that.  For the same reason, there should be no need for me to go (as one person suggested) to an attorney general to try to prosecute WHEELER for hate speech.  What WHEELER wrote may very well be legal -- so he can write it elsewhere.  I just don't want to see someone use Wikipedia as a vehicle for hate speech.  Wikipedia policy is not nor should be the same thing as state or federal law. 

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701